Why do Protestant Apologists feel the need to lie about history and the Catholic Church?

[Contarini]

My dear…Catholic merely means universal

No. From the beginning it meant “the true Church existing throughout space and time, proclaiming the fullness of the truth in opposition to those other supposedly Christian churches that are not Catholic.”

And yes, the first usage of this goes back to the early 2nd, not the 6th century.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t have the time right now, but I am sure there is a basketful of errors in this exposition. I went to the last page, and the author was wondering whether Catholics believe that any one ever went to hell.

My, My, this is something Luther taught. We believe in eternal damnation, and sin and loss of sanctifying grace.
I am sure there lots more in this learned treatise, which is meant to be an attack on the Catholic Church. I thought those kind of polemics was long gone. But in a seminary, you have to send off your ministers with a certain amount of hatred of the Church, otherwise, they might defect, and join the swim team.
.

The author is making a valid argument (though not necessarily a true one), that by the standards of Vatican II it’s pretty difficult to go to hell. This is not a misrepresentation, it’s an argument about the implications of the Catholic teaching. Since some prominent Catholics do believe that it’s possible everyone will be saved, and this view has not been condemned, I don’t think this writer is completely off base. (If this is the best you can do, I think your case is very weak. (For the record, I agree with the Catholic point of view, and am even open to hopeful universalism.)

I deleted the rest of this post because I had not read your later post. But I’ll leave the previous paragraph for what it’s worth!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Equally amazing is your assertion that “mainstream” protestants are somehow not even concerned with apologetics against Catholicism! Mainstream Catholic sites like Catholic Answers are very concerned with apologetics against protestantism, but they seem to have no trouble doing it without resorting to lies about what protestants believe and do, and about known historical facts.

Of course you are concerned with apologetics/polemics against Protestantism, for two reasons:

1. You think you are the true Church (OK, with lots of nuance!), so rightly and properly you want everyone to join you. Most mainline and evangelical Protestants don’t think their particular church is the One True Church. Therefore, we save apologetics/polemics for groups we think are genuinely heretical, such as Mormons. Liberal Protestants don’t think any religion is absolutely true and don’t think any opinion is heretical, so they see no need to convert anyone!
2. You face aggressive proselytization and vicious attack from fundamentalism. While as I said in point 1 you do want to convert us, you are right in saying that you do not by and large insult and attack us as fundamentalists do to you (and to other Protestants, for that matter). Therefore, mainliners and moderate evangelicals don’t see the need to defend themselves against Catholics in the way you do against fundamentalists. We can discuss our differences more amiably–at least that’s my hope!

1 and 2 come together to create Catholic Answers, particularly because of the problem of ex-Catholics. Since you believe that people who leave the Church may be putting their souls in danger, and since Protestant fundamentalists are trying to get Catholics to do just that, it is understandable that you devote a lot of energy to apologetics against Protestant fundamentalism.
Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Because if you are a protestant, your only options are:
you can either refuse to think at all, and say “whatever anyone believes doesn’t matter because all truth is relative and subjective and there’s no such thing as objective truth”.

Or if you actually believe in protestantism and want to justify your belief, you must assert that the 16th century founders of protestantism were justified in splitting off from the Church Christ founded because it had become irreformably evil and was teaching false doctrines (even though this would mean Christ lied).

Or a third option chosen by some especially wacky protestants is to assert that Christ actually founded a protestant church (one’s own denomination of course) which remained “hidden” for 1500+ years, and that what appeared to be the Church during all that time was actually a false “church” set up by the devil to mislead people.

Or you can say that the split was bad and we should try to heal it by no longer condemning each other as heretics.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I have one. If you go to Wikipedia and look up the Anglican Church you will find that the Anglican Church began in England at the end of the 6th Century. Not the 16th Century; the 6th Century.

Of course, Wikipedia is open to anyone to post whatever they want. It may be that someone from this site has posted that false history about the Anglican Church.

Any one want to admit to it?

It’s not false. It’s a matter of definition. If the article claimed that these “Anglicans” did not recognize the authority of Rome, that would be false. (As I told you, I haven’t recently checked how the article reads now, but there are some high-church propagandists at work in that article and I’ve had some minor tussles with them.)

Edwin

 

[Petergee]

Good. Then why don’t you cite a mainstream protestant that does apologetics against Catholicism and intentionally lies about it. Because so far you have not brought any to the table.

I asked you first. And I’m sure you would dismiss every example I give as “non-mainstream”, whatever that means. Protestantism by definition does not have a mainstream.

 

[Petergee]

Of course you are concerned with apologetics/polemics against Protestantism, for two reasons:

1. You think you are the true Church (OK, with lots of nuance!), so rightly and properly you want everyone to join you. Most mainline and evangelical Protestants don’t think their particular church is the One True Church. Therefore, we save apologetics/polemics for groups we think are genuinely heretical, such as Mormons. Liberal Protestants don’t think any religion is absolutely true and don’t think any opinion is heretical, so they see no need to convert anyone!
2. You face aggressive proselytization and vicious attack from fundamentalism. While as I said in point 1 you do want to convert us, you are right in saying that you do not by and large insult and attack us as fundamentalists do to you (and to other Protestants, for that matter). Therefore, mainliners and moderate evangelicals don’t see the need to defend themselves against Catholics in the way you do against fundamentalists. We can discuss our differences more amiably–at least that’s my hope!

1 and 2 come together to create Catholic Answers, particularly because of the problem of ex-Catholics. Since you believe that people who leave the Church may be putting their souls in danger, and since Protestant fundamentalists are trying to get Catholics to do just that, it is understandable that you devote a lot of energy to apologetics against Protestant fundamentalism.
Edwin

Catholic Answers/This Rock and many other Catholic organisations have devoted a lot of time and energy to apolgetics against Anglicanism/Episcopalianism and Lutheranism. Do you regard Anglicans and Lutherans as “mainstream”?
The most prominent Anglican professor/clergyman in my city describes Catholics as “sub-Christian”.

 

[Petergee]

Or you can say that the split was bad and we should try to heal it by no longer condemning each other as heretics.

Edwin

Catholics have been doing that for a long time now. And the topic is not concerend with wherher protestant apologists hate Catholics or condemn them or call their doctrines heresies or (a different thing) call Catholics heretics. The topic is only concerned with whether they lie about indisputable objective facts.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

Of course you are concerned with apologetics/polemics against Protestantism, for two reasons:

1. You think you are the true Church (OK, with lots of nuance!), so rightly and properly you want everyone to join you. Most mainline and evangelical Protestants don’t think their particular church is the One True Church. Therefore, we save apologetics/polemics for groups we think are genuinely heretical, such as Mormons. Liberal Protestants don’t think any religion is absolutely true and don’t think any opinion is heretical, so they see no need to convert anyone!
2. You face aggressive proselytization and vicious attack from fundamentalism. While as I said in point 1 you do want to convert us, you are right in saying that you do not by and large insult and attack us as fundamentalists do to you (and to other Protestants, for that matter). Therefore, mainliners and moderate evangelicals don’t see the need to defend themselves against Catholics in the way you do against fundamentalists. We can discuss our differences more amiably–at least that’s my hope!

1 and 2 come together to create Catholic Answers, particularly because of the problem of ex-Catholics. Since you believe that people who leave the Church may be putting their souls in danger, and since Protestant fundamentalists are trying to get Catholics to do just that, it is understandable that you devote a lot of energy to apologetics against Protestant fundamentalism.
Edwin

This was an absolute grand-slam, Edwin!

I’ve never been so enlightened in so few words. I was beginning to think I was wasting my time keeping up with this thread (no offense to the OP, but it’s dragging on a bit).

I’m sending up a prayer of ‘thanks be to God’ for you!

 

[Petergee]

It’s not false. It’s a matter of definition. If the article claimed that these “Anglicans” did not recognize the authority of Rome, that would be false. (As I told you, I haven’t recently checked how the article reads now, but there are some high-church propagandists at work in that article and I’ve had some minor tussles with them.)

Edwin

“Definition” my foot. The archbishops of Canterbury (including quite a few non-Englishmen) were appointed by the Pope up until the 16th century. One of them, England’s most acclaimed saint Thomas Becket, was martyred precisely because he objected to the English monarch usurping the pope’s jurisdiction over the church in England. The Catholic bishops of England from the 6th to the early 16th centuries would have laughed in your face if you had suggested to them that they belonged to a different church than the one ruled by the Pope. These are indisputable historical facts.
You may as well say that Lutheranism started when St Boniface (a catholic English bishop btw) converted the Germans in the 7th century.
If you are going to define “Anglican”: as simply “having an identifiable national culture”, you could say that about the Catholic Church in any country. Having a national culture doesn’t constitute the “origins” of a separate national church.
In any case the Anglican split was driven by a tiny minority of English protestants who by a series of unfortunate events gained power over the instruments of governance of the State, and used this to brutally wrest control over the governance of the church. I’m sure if the English population had been allowed a democratic referendum in 1535 on whether to split from the Catholic Church, there would have been a resounding “no”.

 

[mozart-250]

I asked you first. And I’m sure you would dismiss every example I give as “non-mainstream”, whatever that means. Protestantism by definition does not have a mainstream.

Perhaps I would.

From where I sit I see no evidence that the fundamentalist wing that considers Catholicism the whore of Babylon and a non-Christian cult is representative of evangelicals and Protestants as a whole. Furthermore I have no interest in defending the Jack Chick/Bob Jones wing of Christianity anyway,

Also I see no evidence that any other wing of Evangelicals/Protestants (names Billy Graham, Rick Warren, James Dobson) are even that hot and bothered about Catholicism to write about it to the level that you would consider it an “apologetic against Catholicism”.

So I guess we are sort of at a standstill here.

BTW there is no such entity as Protestantism other than a bucket term to put everything that is not Catholic or Orthodox under.

 

[Petergee]

Perhaps I would.

From where I sit I see no evidence that the fundamentalist wing that considers Catholicism the whore of Babylon and a non-Christian cult is representative of evangelicals and Protestants as a whole. Furthermore I have no interest in defending the Jack Chick/Bob Jones wing of Christianity anyway,

Calling the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon, although offensive and I obviously disagree, is a religious belief, NOT a lie about the nature of catholic beliefs or practices or about historical facts.

Also I see no evidence that any other wing of Evangelicals/Protestants (names Billy Graham, Rick Warren, James Dobson) are even that hot and bothered about Catholicism to write about it to the level that you would consider it an “apologetic against Catholicism”.

So I guess we are sort of at a standstill here.

No need to be hot and bothered. I’m sure any protestant apologist who actually believes what he professes (as opposed to the cultural protestants who say “join any religion you want, it’s all good”, which I’m sure doesn’t include these gentlemen) has reasons why he thinks his own denomination is right and Catholicism is wrong on those points where they disagree, and is not shy about explaining why.

BTW there is no such entity as Protestantism other than a bucket term to put everything that is not Catholic or Orthodox under.

Exactly my point. There is no “mainstream”.

 

[Protestant101]

Of course you are concerned with apologetics/polemics against Protestantism, for two reasons:

1. You think you are the true Church (OK, with lots of nuance!), so rightly and properly you want everyone to join you. Most mainline and evangelical Protestants don’t think their particular church is the One True Church. Therefore, we save apologetics/polemics for groups we think are genuinely heretical, such as Mormons. Liberal Protestants don’t think any religion is absolutely true and don’t think any opinion is heretical, so they see no need to convert anyone!
2. You face aggressive proselytization and vicious attack from fundamentalism. While as I said in point 1 you do want to convert us, you are right in saying that you do not by and large insult and attack us as fundamentalists do to you (and to other Protestants, for that matter). Therefore, mainliners and moderate evangelicals don’t see the need to defend themselves against Catholics in the way you do against fundamentalists. We can discuss our differences more amiably–at least that’s my hope!

1 and 2 come together to create Catholic Answers, particularly because of the problem of ex-Catholics. Since you believe that people who leave the Church may be putting their souls in danger, and since Protestant fundamentalists are trying to get Catholics to do just that, it is understandable that you devote a lot of energy to apologetics against Protestant fundamentalism.
Edwin

There is no “enlightenment” in this post at all; except for the fact that you likely need to go back to the text book and read the whole paragraph.

Evangelicals are the absolute worst when it comes to “apologetics;” and the so called “Bible Answer Man” is perfect proof of Evangelicals doing just what you say the Catholics are doing. Most of the so called apologetics sites on the internet are Evangelical connected.

Actually; I think that this Catholic Answers Forum and web site is one of the best Catholic sites around. Us Protestants could likely take a few pointers from how they do things here.

 

[Nella]

There is no “enlightenment” in this post at all; except for the fact that you likely need to go back to the text book and read the whole paragraph.

Evangelicals are the absolute worst when it comes to “apologetics;” and the so called “Bible Answer Man” is perfect proof of Evangelicals doing just what you say the Catholics are doing. Most of the so called apologetics sites on the internet are Evangelical connected.

Actually; I think that this Catholic Answers Forum and web site is one of the best Catholic sites around. Us Protestants could likely take a few pointers from how they do things here.

I agree with the notion that Evangelicals are the bottom of the barrel in apologetics but mainline Protestants like many of us are not Evangelicals.

 

[Protestant101]

I agree with the notion that Evangelicals are the bottom of the barrel in apologetics but mainline Protestants like many of us are not Evangelicals.

Yes; you are correct, and my reference to Evangelicals was specific to use of the word within the post that I had replied to.

It still stands to reason though that we can take lessons on some of what they do here; and how they do it. IMHO.

 

[Romans12]

This is utter disrespect for others here that happen to be non-Catholic. It is funny how things like this just pass through the cracks when they are authored by Catholics but just let a Protestant make a similar statement about Catholics and the boot to the rear end would already be in motion. Your statement about Protestants being liars and being misled in history is ignorant and unfounded. The primacy of Rome has been under constant protest and debate since its conception.

While I understand your reaction to this, please at least acknowledge it is no different on NON-Catholic sites… I have seen thread after thread on similar topics that aren’t ANY better…

At least you can still post here I believe, unlike some sites where you get banned and locked out of forums for disagreeing…

I am not condonning any negative attacks by ANY denominaton on ANY site… debate is healthy and good, and in the right tone with respect to all parties it is very educational…

The Focus should always be on similarities not differences… imo

God Bless.

 

[Proletarian]

At least you can still post here I believe, unlike some sites where you get banned and locked out of forums for disagreeing…

I’m yet to find a protestant forum that has not banned me for expressing a Catholic opinion (even when done in the most respectful manner possible).

 

[Nella]

While I understand your reaction to this, please at least acknowledge it is no different on NON-Catholic sites… I have seen thread after thread on similar topics that aren’t ANY better…

At least you can still post here I believe, unlike some sites where you get banned and locked out of forums for disagreeing…

I am not condonning any negative attacks by ANY denominaton on ANY site… debate is healthy and good, and in the right tone with respect to all parties it is very educational…

The Focus should always be on similarities not differences… imo

God Bless.

Absolutely. See my thread on the Episcopal church. I talk openly there about our similarities. I agree ith you about debate and focusing on what we have in common which happens to be alot.

 

[Romans12]

I’m yet to find a protestant forum that has not banned me for expressing a Catholic opinion (even when done in the most respectful manner possible).

That is my point…

Ignorance is bliss… at least here you get a fair hearing. Unlike some of the NON-Catholic sites I have been on… where if you cant be shutdown by personal attacks, your locked out…

 

[mgrfin]

This is utter disrespect for others here that happen to be non-Catholic. It is funny how things like this just pass through the cracks when they are authored by Catholics but just let a Protestant make a similar statement about Catholics and the boot to the rear end would already be in motion. Your statement about Protestants being liars and being misled in history is ignorant and unfounded. The primacy of Rome has been under constant protest and debate since its conception.

Nella,
I haven’t been here that long, but my experience is that you constantly nag, criticize, cajole, bicker, hate, bigot, anything that is Catholic, and, yet, you are still here.

I have yet to see a valuable post from your that adds to the discussion - that doesn’t hammer on anything Catholic. To you, it seems, if it Catholic, it has to be wrong.

We love you, Nella, and hope you find peace in your day.

mgrfin